The European Union (EU) has announced a new $108 billion (about €100 billion) investment plan to speed up the production and use of cleaner fuels for aviation and shipping. The plan, called the Sustainable Transport Investment Plan or STIP, will run until 2035.
It is one of the largest efforts in Europe to cut emissions from two of the hardest sectors to decarbonize—aviation and maritime transport. The EU hopes the program will help meet its climate targets and strengthen Europe’s leadership in clean energy technology.
The plan aims to boost the economy. It will create jobs, attract private investors, and build new industries centered on sustainable fuels.
Why Planes and Ships Should Go Green
Airplanes and ships play a vital role in global trade and travel. However, they release a lot of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The aviation sector alone is responsible for about 3% of global emissions, and that number is rising as air travel grows.
Unlike cars or trains, airplanes and large ships cannot easily switch to battery power. That is why sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and synthetic e-fuels are key to cutting emissions in these sectors. These fuels can be made from renewable sources such as used cooking oil, waste, or captured carbon, and can often be used in existing engines.
However, cleaner fuels are still much more expensive to produce than traditional jet fuel. The new EU plan aims to close this price gap by providing investment support, policy certainty, and funding for research and infrastructure.
Key Goals of the $108B Investment Plan
The Sustainable Transport Investment Plan brings together funding, regulation, and private partnerships to scale up clean fuel production across Europe. Its main targets include:
- 20 million tonnes of sustainable fuels will be produced each year by 2035.
- Around 13 million tonnes of biofuels and 7 million tonnes of e-fuels.
- Deployment of clean fuel technology in both aviation and maritime transport.
- Greater energy independence and industrial competitiveness for Europe.
The EU expects to mobilize at least €2.9 billion by 2027 as a first step. Part of the money will come from existing EU programs such as InvestEU, the European Hydrogen Bank, the Innovation Fund, and Horizon Europe. These programs will help finance new fuel plants, research projects, and pilot facilities.
For example, more than €300 million will support hydrogen-based fuels for planes and ships. €150 million will support synthetic fuel projects. Additionally, €130 million will fund research on new clean fuel technologies.
The plan promotes partnerships among governments, energy companies, and airlines. This helps ensure that supply and demand increase together.
Building a Market for Sustainable Aviation Fuels
Today, sustainable aviation fuels make up less than 1% of Europe’s total jet fuel supply. The new investment plan aims to change that by building a large and stable market for cleaner fuels.
Under new EU rules, ReFuelEU Aviation and FuelEU Maritime, airlines and shipping companies must slowly boost their use of renewable fuels. The rules require at least 2% SAF by 2025, 6% by 2030, and 70% by 2050 for aviation.
To meet these targets, Europe needs dozens of new refineries and production plants. The investment plan offers developers more financial certainty. This should help attract private capital. Many companies have been hesitant to invest in SAF plants because of high costs and uncertain returns.
By combining regulation with financial incentives, the EU hopes to lower these risks and attract long-term investors.
The plan also promotes the creation of fuel offtake agreements, where airlines commit to buying a set amount of SAF each year. This helps producers secure financing, knowing there will be demand for their product once it is ready.
Experts expect global production of SAF to rise substantially by 2030. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) says that in a “high +” policy scenario, production might hit about 16.97 million tonnes by 2030. This would meet around 5% of the expected aviation fuel demand.
Other reports suggest figures such as 6.1 to 8.2 billion gallons (~23–31 million tonnes) by 2030 based on announced projects and capacity. Most analyses say that, despite this growth, the industry needs more support. This includes policy help, feedstock expansion, and better technology. These steps are crucial to meet even modest blend targets.
Economic and Environmental Impact
The EU estimates that scaling up SAF and e-fuels could create tens of thousands of new jobs across Europe. These jobs would come from building new plants, upgrading infrastructure, and managing supply chains for renewable fuels.
Economic benefits also include:
- More investment in rural areas where biofuel feedstocks are grown.
- Strengthened local industries producing renewable hydrogen and carbon-capture systems.
- Reduced dependence on imported oil and gas.
Sustainable aviation fuels can cut lifecycle carbon emissions by 70–90%. This reduction depends on how they are made, compared to fossil-based jet fuel. E-fuels made from green hydrogen and captured carbon can potentially be near-zero emission.
If Europe achieves its production targets, the total fuel savings could cut up to 200 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2035. That would be a major step toward meeting the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality goal.
What are the Challenges to Overcome?
While the EU plan is ambitious, experts warn that several obstacles remain, including:
- Feedstock supply: Europe needs to secure enough sustainable raw materials, like waste oils and residues. This must happen without harming food production or ecosystems.
- Cost gap: SAFs currently cost 2x to 5x times more than traditional jet fuel. Subsidies and long-term contracts will be needed to make them affordable for airlines.
- Infrastructure: Airports and ports will need to upgrade storage and refueling systems to handle new fuel types safely.
- Permitting and construction: Building new fuel plants can take years, and delays in approvals could slow progress.
- Global competition: The U.S. and Asia are also investing heavily in clean-fuel production. Europe must remain competitive while keeping its sustainability standards high.
Despite these challenges, many in the aviation industry see the plan as a turning point. Airlines, manufacturers, and energy companies are working together to pilot new fuel technologies and increase production capacity.
Next Steps for Cleaner Skies
Over the next two years, the EU will focus on building early projects and securing private investment. The first wave of large-scale SAF facilities could begin operations by 2027.
The European Commission will also monitor fuel availability, costs, and emissions reductions. Annual progress reports will help track whether Europe is on pace to meet its 2030 and 2035 milestones.
If successful, the plan could become a model for other regions looking to decarbonize aviation. Similar programs are under discussion in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. As the world races toward net zero, the success of this plan could help define how fast aviation and shipping can truly go green.
The post Europe Unveils $108B Clean Fuel Plan to Decarbonize Aviation and Shipping by 2035 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits